The International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine (IJMTFM) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and ethical peer-review process. The journal follows internationally recognized principles and recommendations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Peer review is an essential component of the editorial process and is intended to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

1. Peer-Review Model

IJMTFM uses a single-blind peer-review process.

Under the single-blind model:

  • The identities of the authors are disclosed to the reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
  • Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of their identity throughout the peer-review process.
  • Authors should not attempt to identify or contact reviewers regarding their manuscript.
  • Reviewer reports and recommendations are communicated to authors without revealing the reviewer's identity.

The journal considers reviewer anonymity an important mechanism for supporting objective and independent assessment of submitted manuscripts.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to IJMTFM undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The initial assessment may consider:

  • Compliance with the journal's aims and scope.
  • Adherence to the Author Guidelines.
  • Scientific and methodological suitability.
  • Ethical requirements.
  • Originality and potential plagiarism.
  • Completeness of the submitted files and required declarations.
  • Potential conflicts of interest.
  • Overall suitability for external peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor may reject a manuscript without external peer review if it is outside the scope of the journal, does not meet basic editorial or ethical requirements, or is considered unsuitable for further consideration.

3. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.

Depending on the subject matter, methodology, complexity of the manuscript, or disagreement between reviewers, the journal may invite additional reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant scientific expertise, methodological experience, publication record, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor after consideration of the reviewers' comments and the overall scientific and ethical quality of the manuscript.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept.
  • Minor revision.
  • Major revision.
  • Reject.

A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not by itself determine the final editorial decision.

4. Suggested Reviewers

At the time of submission, the corresponding author may be invited to suggest qualified potential reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript.

Authors may also identify individuals who they believe should not be invited to review their manuscript because of a potential conflict of interest. Where such exclusions are requested, authors should provide a reasonable justification.

Suggested reviewers must be independent of the authors and should not have a significant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationship with the authors that could compromise their impartiality.

The submission of suggested reviewer names does not guarantee that those individuals will be invited to review the manuscript.

The final selection of reviewers is made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. The journal may use author-suggested reviewers when appropriate but is not obligated to select them.

Authors must not contact suggested reviewers regarding the manuscript or attempt to influence the peer-review process.

5. Reviewer Anonymity

IJMTFM follows a single-blind peer-review model in which reviewers remain anonymous to authors.

Reviewers should not disclose their identity to authors, either directly or indirectly, during or after the review process unless the journal explicitly adopts a different review model for a particular article.

Reviewer names and identifying information will not normally be included in the decision letter or reviewer comments sent to authors.

The journal may maintain records of reviewer identities for editorial and administrative purposes and for the management of peer-review quality and conflicts of interest.

6. Review Timeline

IJMTFM aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on the availability of suitable reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional reviews, and the time required for editorial assessment.

The journal therefore does not guarantee a fixed review period.

Reviewers are encouraged to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified in the review invitation. Authors will be informed when substantial delays occur whenever practicable.

When revisions are requested, authors should normally submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified in the editorial decision. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the deadline.

7. Reporting Guidelines

Where applicable, reviewers and editors may consider recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to the study design, including:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.
  • STROBE for observational studies.
  • PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies.
  • Other relevant reporting guidelines appropriate to the research design.

Authors are encouraged to consult and follow the appropriate reporting guideline before submission.

8. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Treat manuscripts and all information contained in them as strictly confidential.
  • Provide objective, fair, constructive, and scientifically supported comments.
  • Evaluate manuscripts independently and without personal bias.
  • Assess the originality, scientific validity, methodology, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript.
  • Identify important published work that has not been appropriately cited, where relevant.
  • Alert the editor to substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and other published or submitted work of which they are aware.
  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or other research misconduct.
  • Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
  • Decline the review when a conflict of interest could compromise their impartiality.
  • Decline the review if they do not have sufficient expertise or cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, professional, or financial benefit.
  • Not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless specifically authorized by the journal.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to IJMTFM are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with colleagues or other individuals without prior permission from the journal.
  • Copy, distribute, or publicly discuss submitted manuscripts.
  • Use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings for their own research or professional advantage.
  • Upload confidential manuscript content to external artificial intelligence systems or other third-party services unless expressly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place.

Editors and editorial staff must also maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not disclose information about a manuscript to individuals who are not directly involved in the editorial process.

10. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could affect, or could reasonably be perceived to affect, their objectivity.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Current or recent collaboration with one or more authors.
  • Employment at the same institution or department.
  • Personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors.
  • Direct competition with the authors.
  • Financial interests related to the research.
  • Strong personal or academic interests that could substantially influence the review.

If a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Familiarity with an author's previous research does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest. However, reviewers should inform the editor when such familiarity could reasonably affect their impartiality.

11. Conducting a Peer Review

A useful peer review should be objective, specific, constructive, and supported by clear reasoning.

Reviewers should evaluate, as appropriate:

  • The originality and significance of the research.
  • The relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.
  • The clarity of the research question and objectives.
  • The appropriateness of the study design and methodology.
  • The adequacy and validity of statistical analyses.
  • The presentation and interpretation of results.
  • The consistency between the results and conclusions.
  • The adequacy of references and citation of relevant literature.
  • Ethical approval and informed-consent requirements where applicable.
  • Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines.
  • The quality and clarity of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
  • Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text recycling.
  • The clarity of language, grammar, spelling, and scientific terminology.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or reliability of the research and minor issues that can be addressed during revision.

12. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be clear, respectful, and constructive.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Number their comments where appropriate.
  • Refer to specific sections, pages, tables, figures, or lines of the manuscript when possible.
  • Explain the reasons for their recommendations.
  • Distinguish major concerns from minor comments.
  • Provide practical suggestions for improving the manuscript.
  • Avoid offensive, discriminatory, sarcastic, or personal comments.
  • Focus criticism on the research and manuscript rather than the authors.

Reviewer comments should be written in clear and professional language.

The journal may edit reviewer comments for clarity, professionalism, or compliance with its ethical standards.

13. Revised Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to all substantive reviewer and editorial comments.

A revised manuscript should normally be accompanied by a response to reviewers explaining:

  • How each comment was addressed.
  • Where changes were made in the revised manuscript.
  • The rationale for any comment that the authors believe cannot reasonably be addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

14. Editorial Decision and Appeals

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical standards, relevance to the journal, and the overall assessment of the manuscript.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal should provide specific and substantive grounds and should not merely express disagreement with the decision.

The journal may seek additional expert advice when appropriate.

15. Editorial Independence

IJMTFM is committed to editorial independence.

Editorial decisions are made according to academic, scientific, and ethical considerations and must not be influenced by commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, personal relationships, or other external pressures.

The Editor-in-Chief and editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and independently.

Editors with a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript must not participate in its editorial evaluation or final decision.

16. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts throughout the review process.

Reviewers must not enter confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or other protected information into publicly accessible artificial intelligence systems or generative AI tools unless such use has been expressly authorized by IJMTFM and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are available.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own critical assessment and professional judgment.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of their review.

17. Ethical Concerns During Peer Review

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they identify potential:

  • Plagiarism or significant text overlap.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Fabricated or falsified data.
  • Manipulated or misleading images.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Unethical research involving humans or animals.
  • Inappropriate authorship.
  • Serious methodological or statistical problems.
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not independently investigate authors or contact their institutions unless specifically requested or authorized by the journal.

18. Commitment to Fair and Ethical Peer Review

The International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine (IJMTFM) is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is fair, confidential, constructive, timely, and free from inappropriate influence.

The journal will periodically review and update its peer-review policies in accordance with developments in international standards and relevant recommendations from COPE and ICMJE.